Bound to an Era: Rethinking Mental Illness in the Digital Age
Psychiatrist, author, advocate.
September 7, 2026
Imagine your phone battery drops to 5 percent while you are trying to find your way in an unfamiliar city at midnight. It is easy to feel anxious, since losing your phone means losing directions, transportation options, and a way to call for help. In another situation, someone wakes up to news about environmental destruction and finds it hard to focus on the day ahead.
Both situations can cause real distress. On their own, though, they do not mean someone has a psychiatric disorder. At the same time, it would be too soon to call them just normal parts of modern life.
Terms like gaming disorder, problematic internet use, nomophobia, and eco-anxiety highlight this ongoing issue. Older diagnostic manuals used the term “culture-bound syndromes” to describe patterns of distress linked to certain communities. This approach sometimes treated Western diagnoses as the standard and labeled other experiences as unusual or unique to specific cultures. The DSM-5 replaced this term with “cultural concepts of distress.” This new term covers shared symptom patterns, ways people express suffering, and explanations for illness. The change challenged the idea that these experiences happen only in certain places.
Distress in the digital age can be understood similarly. Rather than being tied to one place, it may stem from a shared historical moment shaped by online communication, reliance on technology, and awareness of environmental risks. In this way, these experiences are connected to a specific era, not just a location. This idea is a way to think about the issue, not a new diagnosis. Even though many people use the same technologies, their experiences can still differ widely across cultures.
A label is not a diagnosis.
The terms people use in public discussions fit differently within psychiatric classification. The two main manuals are the DSM-5-TR and the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases, or ICD-11. If we group all these experiences under “screen addiction,” we miss important differences. Using simple evidence ratings like “high” or “moderate” can make things even less clear.
Gaming disorder has the clearest official status. It is recognized in ICD-11, while Internet Gaming Disorder is still being studied in DSM-5-TR. The main question is how to reliably distinguish a serious disorder from simply spending a lot of time gaming without it becoming a problem.
Problematic internet use is less clearly defined. There is no widely accepted diagnosis for internet use overall. It is still unclear whether the internet itself is the problem or whether it is just the behaviors people engage in.
Social media addiction is not listed as a separate diagnosis in DSM-5-TR or ICD-11. Studies have found links between social media use, distress, and lower quality of life, but measurement is inconsistent and does not prove it is a unique disorder.
Nomophobia, or the fear of being without a mobile phone, is still mainly a research idea and not a separate diagnosis. It is not clear where it overlaps with practical phone dependence, other types of anxiety, or just normal behavior today.
Eco-anxiety is also not recognized as its own diagnosis. The main issue is that fear about environmental problems can be a reasonable response to real threats.
Being recognized as a diagnosis is not the same as having more evidence. Research on climate distress includes real-world measurements and behavioral studies, even though eco-anxiety is not a separate diagnosis. On the other hand, officially recognizing gaming disorder does not settle debates about where to draw the line or how it applies across cultures. Gaming disorder is not just about how many hours someone plays. According to ICD-11, it involves losing control, making gaming more important than other activities, continuing to play even when it causes problems, and having serious difficulties in daily life. Randomized studies show that some interventions can help. For example, a school-based study in Germany reduced the severity of gaming and internet use symptoms, even though the number of new cases did not change much. Another study with men in Germany and Austria found that cognitive-behavioral therapy worked better than no treatment. These results support offering help, but they do not mean that all heavy use is a disorder or that responding to treatment proves it is a separate disease.
For conditions that are not clearly defined, we need to be careful when talking about how common they are. If different questionnaires define the problem differently, they might not be measuring the same thing. Just because many people report a symptom does not mean it is a widely recognized disorder.
The same caution applies to social media. Associations between problematic use, anxiety, and reduced quality of life deserve attention, but association does not establish causation. Researchers must also determine whether the proposed label adds information beyond existing difficulties.
Distress is not the same as dysfunction.
Climate anxiety shows the main challenge. Fearing a real threat can be a reasonable way to see the world. Sometimes, this fear leads to positive action instead of mental health problems. So, the intensity of the feeling alone cannot determine whether it is a disorder. Researchers have tried to address this difference with the Climate Change Distress and Impairment Scale. This tool measures emotional distress separately from how much it interferes with daily life. It is a step forward in research methods, but it does not clearly separate people into “healthy” or “ill.”
Many psychiatric criteria include either significant distress or impairment, so someone can still have a disorder even if they keep working. On the other hand, just having trouble functioning does not always mean there is a new psychiatric condition. The difference between a “rational reaction” and “mental illness” is not always clear-cut. A reasonable cause and a diagnosable disorder can happen at the same time.
Two questions that should not be confused
There are two main risks. Diagnostic inflation means giving normal suffering a medical label too quickly. Diagnostic neglect means missing serious problems because they are common, not well known, or hard to classify.
To avoid both problems, we need to separate the question “Does this person need help?” from “Does psychiatry need a new diagnosis?” People can get support even without a new label, and just because support helps does not mean there is a separate disorder.
“Cultural idioms of distress” are one way to look at this: they are shared ways people experience and talk about suffering, without assuming it is a separate disease. For example, eco-anxiety can describe a real experience even if it is not a formal diagnosis. This view adds to individual assessment, but it should not be used as an excuse to ignore serious symptoms.
Four questions before adding a disorder
A better approach is to look at four types of evidence. These are suggestions for classifying conditions, not official rules for diagnosing people.
First, is there a clear pattern? Does the condition describe a set of symptoms that current diagnoses do not fully explain? The symptoms should be recognizable, but they do not have to be unique.
Second, does the condition have a typical course? Do studies that follow people over time find clear patterns in how it starts, lasts, and gets better? A short-term reaction to events should not be confused with a long-lasting syndrome.
Third, is it clinically significant in context? Can researchers measure distress, impairment, and loss of control without just using frequent use or strong concern as stand-ins? Measures should work across different social and cultural settings.
Fourth, is the diagnosis useful in practice and supported by treatment evidence? Does it help with assessment, prediction, or care? Studies on treatment add evidence, but just because therapy helps does not prove it is a separate disorder, and not having a specific treatment does not mean the disorder does not exist.
Diagnostic categories should help explain and treat problems, not just describe them. We do not have to choose between labeling everything as a medical problem or ignoring suffering. Psychiatry can take modern struggles seriously while still being careful about adding new diagnoses. The idea of being “bound to an era” is best used to think about context, not to say that a whole generation has new diseases. The real challenge is to see when modern pressures play a role in mental health problems, without making the ability to adapt the only sign of good mental health.
References
Alarcón, R. D. (2014). Cultural inroads in DSM-5. World Psychiatry, 13(3), 310–313. doi:10.1002/wps.20132.
Gureje, O., Lewis-Fernández, R., Hall, B. J., & Reed, G. M. (2019). Systematic inclusion of culture-related information in ICD-11. World Psychiatry, 18(3), 357–358. doi:10.1002/wps.20676.
Torales, J., et al. (2026). From DSM-IV to the future: three decades of evolution in psychiatric classification and what lies ahead. International Review of Psychiatry, 38(1–3), 27–36. doi:10.1080/09540261.2025.2523455.
World Health Organization. Gaming disorder; Mental disorders. Official classification guidance and fact sheet. Accessed September 7, 2026.
American Psychiatric Association. Internet Gaming; What Is Mental Illness? Official diagnostic and patient information. Accessed September 7, 2026.
Reed, G. M., et al. (2019). Innovations and changes in the ICD-11 classification of mental, behavioral and neurodevelopmental disorders. World Psychiatry, 18(1), 3–19. doi:10.1002/wps.20611.
Reed, G. M., et al. (2022). Emerging experience with selected new categories in the ICD-11: complex PTSD, prolonged grief disorder, gaming disorder, and compulsive sexual behavior disorder. World Psychiatry, 21(2), 189–213. doi:10.1002/wps.20960.
Sherer, J., & Levounis, P. (2022). Technological addictions. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 45(3), 577–591. doi:10.1016/j.psc.2022.04.007.
Brand, M., et al. (2022; first published online 2020). Which conditions should be considered as disorders in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) designation of “other specified disorders due to addictive behaviors”? Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 11(2), 150–159. doi:10.1556/2006.2020.00035.
Lindenberg, K., Kindt, S., & Szász-Janocha, C. (2022). Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy-based intervention in preventing gaming disorder and unspecified internet use disorder in adolescents: A cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 5(2), e2148995. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.48995.
Wölfling, K., et al. (2019). Efficacy of short-term treatment of internet and computer game addiction: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 76(10), 1018–1025. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1676.
Dam, V. A. T., et al. (2023). Quality of life and mental health of adolescents: Relationships with social media addiction, Fear of missing out, and stress associated with neglect and negative reactions by online peers. PLOS One, 18(6), e0286766. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0286766.
Al-Mamun, F., et al. (2025). The prevalence of nomophobia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 349, 116521. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116521.
León-Mejía, A. C., Gutiérrez-Ortega, M., Serrano-Pintado, I., & González-Cabrera, J. (2021). A systematic review on nomophobia prevalence: Surfacing results and standard guidelines for future research. PLOS One, 16(5), e0250509. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0250509.
Hepp, J., Klein, S. A., Horsten, L. K., Urbild, J., & Lane, S. P. (2023). Introduction and behavioral validation of the Climate Change Distress and Impairment Scale. Scientific Reports, 13, 11272. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-37573-4.
Petkovski, M., Steinrücke, J., & Dominguez-Rodriguez, A. (2026). Exploring the relationships between eco-anxiety, eco-guilt, eco-grief, and pro-environmental behavior in the Dutch and German population: A cross-sectional study. PLOS One, 21(5), e0349585. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0349585.
Hempel, L. M., Geiger, M., & Betsch, C. (2025). Toward a unified understanding of climate anxiety: Examining measures of climate and eco-anxiety. PLOS One, 20(12), e0339562. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0339562.
Rodney-Wolf, K., Eisenschmidt, P., & Schmitz, J. (2026). Scoping review: climate change-related anxiety and worry in children, adolescents, and young adults. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s00787-026-03026-2.